Something Democrats should keep in mind in trying to understand the opposition as that while we look at the last few election cycles and see massive discontinuity between presidential and midterm elections, many Republicans think of 2012 as a pure aberration in an upward spiral of support for them that reassume its strength in 2014 and is still building steam. At the Washington Monthly I addressed some fresh evidence that’s an illusion:

A lot of Republicans came out of their 2014 landslide fully expecting to keep the party going right into the presidential cycle. There were a lot of reasons to doubt that optimism, from the change to a presidential cycle with less positive turnout patterns for the GOP, to the end of a six-year midterm dynamic that was sure to fade, to an improving economy. But whatever changed, the evidence is growing clearer that the 2014 party’s over. Here’s some relevant data from Pew just out today:

The Republican Party’s image has grown more negative over the first half of this year. Currently, 32% have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, while 60% have an unfavorable view. Favorable views of the GOP have fallen nine percentage points since January. The Democratic Party continues to have mixed ratings (48% favorable, 47% unfavorable).

Part of the problem is that Republicans themselves are less enthusiastic, which is a bit strange since they are being offered the largest presidential field in recent memory. Perhaps it is the inability to blame Congress’ fecklessness on Harry Reid any more.
Interestingly, despite or because of all the shrieking among Republicans about the world being this terrible place where no American is safe, the GOP advantage on foreign policy has vanished since the last Pew survey on the parties in February, and its advantage on “the terrorist threat at home” has been cut in half. But perhaps most significantly, views of the two parties on economic policy are pretty stable for now.
Any way you slice it, any thoughts by Republicans that the landscape is tilting in their direction in this cycle really come down to the fairly abstract notion of an electorate that thinks it’s time for a change after the Obama administration. If contrary to that notion this turns out to be a “two futures” election in which voters are simply comparing the two parties and their candidates, the landscape just isn’t tilting Right.

There are some “ifs” in that last sentence, but then again, the last really boffo Republican presidential election performance was all the way back in 1988.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that all of us–straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender–could marry the person they love. This decision brought our nation one step closer to equality. But this journey is not over. Even in an America where we are free to marry, other basic civil rights are lacking. Thirty-one states lack fully inclusive non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in critical matters of employment, housing, and access to public places. That means in many states, LGBT Americans are still at risk of being denied services, being fired for getting married and wearing their wedding ring to the office the next day, or simply for being who they are. This injustice has grown increasingly intolerable to an overwhelming majority of Americans.
Today, Democracy Corps, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Human Rights Campaign release the results from a new survey of likely 2016 voters. This survey reinforces voters’ long-held commitment to non-discrimination, as four out five voters believe this is a basic civil right. This survey also demonstrates voters are willing to oppose candidates for public office who oppose these basic civil rights, including groups critical to the outcome of the 2016 election. These results are very consistent with a Human Rights Campaign survey of likely voters taken in January showing 43 percent are much less likely to support a candidate who opposes non-discrimination.
Moreover, the issue of “faith” does not change the politics of this issue. Voters do not accept religion as an excuse to discriminate.
This memorandum summarizes the results of a national telephone survey of 950 likely 2016 voters. In order to better reflect the changing habits and demography of the country, 60 percent of those interviewed for this survey responded using cell phones. The survey was conducted June 13-17, 2015 and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.38.
Key Findings

• Voters reject discrimination. By an impressive 78 percent to 16 percent, voters support protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in employment. These results are very consistent with past surveys; in 2011, voters supported this proposal by a 79 to 18 percent margin.
• Support for non-discrimination unites the country. At a time when Democrats and Republicans rarely agree on anything, they agree on this. A 64 percent majority of Republicans support protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination, as do 90 percent of Democrats. Similarly, this legislation draws impressive majorities among college (84 percent) and non-college voters (73 percent), younger (85 percent) and older (75 per-cent), as well as observant Christians (70 percent favor).
• Voters will also consider this issue when voting next year. A 59 percent majority of voters are less likely to support a candidate for president who opposes protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the work place. Just 27 percent are more likely and 9 percent say it would make no difference. This is not just a progressive base issue. A 61 percent majority of Independent voters say they are less likely to support a candidate who opposes these protections, as do 58 percent of Catholic voters, 54 percent of blue collar voters and 60 percent of married women.
• This could be key issue among white millennial voters. Arguably, the most interesting group in this debate is white millennial voters (defined here as voters born between 1980 and 1997). These younger white voters supported Obama in 2008, but voted Republican in 2010, 2012 and 2014, reflecting their frustration with the slow pace of change. However, they are committed to equality. A near-unanimous 86 percent majority support employment protections for LGBT people. Moreover, 65 percent are less likely to support a candidate who opposes this protection.



• Religion is not an excuse to discriminate. Politicians in Indiana, Arkansas and a number of other states have raised the issue of faith in efforts to stop the advance of non-discrimination. As we found out in Indiana voters are having none of it. In this survey, a 56 percent majority believe small business owners should not be allowed to refuse service to someone because they are gay or lesbian, even if it violates their religious beliefs. Nearly half (46 percent), strongly oppose giving small businesses the right to discriminate, including 55 percent of white millennials.1

Conclusion
This legislation is long overdue. Non-discrimination legislation was first introduced to Congress in 1974 and has been reintroduced many times since. As early as 1977, voters believed gay people should have “equal rights” in terms of job opportunities, according to Gallup. Nearly forty years later, this community is still waiting for federal legislation fully protecting their rights. This time, they carry the conviction of an impressive majority of American voters.
Read on Corps website.

“…You find broad agreement across almost every part of the American electorate that the system is essentially rigged, benefiting the rich and leaving everyone else behind. The share of Democrats who agree with that idea, 82 percent, is, not surprisingly, far higher than the share of Republicans, 51 percent, who said the same. But still, we are talking majorities in both parties here. That suggests that in a summer where the headlines have all but forced every presidential candidate to weigh in on all manner of social issues, for Democrats, in particular, the best way to engage and then animate a large portion of voters may be a pivot toward economic issues.” — from “Why in a summer full of social change you can expect to hear a lot more about pocketbook issues” by Janell Ross at The Fix.
Emily Flitter and Grant Smith of Reuters have an update on the battle for digital dominance between Dems and the GOP.
After documenting GOP presidential candidates previous praise for Donald Trump, E. J. Dionne, Jr. writes in his latest syndicated column “Sorry, but the real Donald Trump has been in full view for a long time, and Perry’s new glasses can’t explain his newfound clarity. I don’t credit Trump with much. But he deserves an award for exposing the double-standards of Republican politicians. They put their outrage in a blind trust as long as Trump was, in Perry’s words, “throwing invectives in this hyperbolic rhetoric out there” against Obama and the GOP’s other enemies.”
When Trumpmania subsides, the latest indications from a new PPP poll suggests Gov. Scott Walker (R-Koch Bros.) may become the GOP’s new lead dog, Jesse Byrnes reports at The Hill.
But Trump’s 3rd party trial balloon talk is likely freaking out GOP strategists.
In their NYT op-ed, “Socialism, American Style,” Gar Alperovitz and Thomas M. Hanna note a revealing paradox in Republican politician attitudes toward the debate over big government: “…One of the largest “socialist” enterprises in the nation is the Tennessee Valley Authority, a publicly owned company with $11 billion in sales revenue, nine million customers and 11,260 employees that produces electricity and helps manage the Tennessee River system. In 2013 President Obama proposed privatizing the T.V.A., but local Republican politicians, concerned with the prospect of higher prices for consumers and less money for their states, successfully opposed the idea.” Apparently, big government is bad for Republican leaders only when it benefits constituencies they don’t represent.
National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar i.d.s “The Four States That Will Make or Break Democrats’ Senate Hopes.” (FL; NC; NH; and PA).
S. Kumar explains at Huffpo “How Mobile Technology Could Revolutionize the U.S. Voting System.” Kumar recounts the impressive convenience and cost-savings potential and notes, “There are obviously risks in mobile voting such a lack of a paper audit trail and voting fraud. If a voter’s phone is hacked, his or her vote could be falsified, but that can be addressed with the right technology. As many other applications, such as mobile wallets, have evolved to become more secure, voting too can become a commonplace and safe activity.”
Gov. John Kasich, not a military veteran, wants boots on the ground vs. Isis. Opinion polls on military action vs. Isis suggest he may be on safe ground — primarilly with Republican voters.

As James Vega noted in his last post, there’s renewed interest in the white working class vote this cycle–but you have to look at it from a number of angles to understand the dynamics of this vote. I discussed those different perspectives as TPMCafe today:

[I]n this presidential cycle, the fear that a nominee not named Barack Obama will fall short of his turnout and vote-share levels among the Obama Coalition has led to schemes of making up the votes elsewhere. And whereas Hillary Clinton has a plausible case she can boost the Democratic vote among women, other Democrats–especially supporters of Bernie Sanders–are looking wistfully at that old flame, the white working class vote.
Sanders represents the strongly-held belief of many progressives, especially in the labor movement, that a clear, loud and consistently articulated “economic populist” message can at least partially rebuild the New Deal coalition with its cross-racial, class-based sinews, particularly if “corporate Democrat” flirtations with Wall Street and professional elites are abandoned along with excessive “identity politics” cultural preoccupations that might alienate white workers. But muting points of identity with the Obama Coalition in order to pursue a purely class-based “colorblind” politics isn’t without its intra-progressive risks, as Bernie Sanders himself found out last weekend in Phoenix when he ran afoul of #blacklivesmatter protesters.
And while it is entirely unfair to accuse Sanders of white-working-class chauvinism, much less racism, he’s paying the price for being associated with an “economics first!” point of view that can fairly be seen as an obstacle for minority folk (and arguably feminists) who want a higher priority placed on challenging white male patriarchy in non-economic arenas. And so a candidate who hoped to draw white working class voters back into a coalition with minority voters has instead heightened doubts he understand the latter.
This is a test that Hillary Clinton, herself the object of some talk about a possible revival of white working class support (though largely based on her husband’s performance back in the 1990s and her own in Democratic primaries in 2008), may have to face herself at some point soon.
Beyond the candidates, there are some Democratic observers–notably a long-time expert on this demographic, Stan Greenberg–who believe the key to regaining a portion of the white working class is to identify with its hostility to government as corrupt and ineffective and offer a “populist” agenda that prominently includes political and government reform.
Despite their already strong standing among non-college-educated white voters, Republicans think there’s still political gold to mine in this demographic as well, in no small part because they are struggling to open up any really new avenues for growing their vote. Many are mesmerized by Sean Trende’s analysis after the 2012 elections suggesting there were millions of “missing white votes” in 2012 that helped doom Mitt Romney, mostly among “downscale northern rural” voters. This has led to a boom of “conservative populist” talk, some of it as superficial as non-college graduate Scott Walker’s endless paeans to Kohl’s shoppers, some a bit more focused on promoting the already-robust GOP anti-Washington themes, odd as they seem with Republicans controlling Congress.
One 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, signaled early on that he would identify with white working class voters who were sufficiently integrated into the GOP to vote in presidential primaries but had not internalized Republican elite economic positions. Building on the “populist” rhetoric of his 2008 campaign, Huckabee announced he would oppose both the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and the “entitlement reform” proposals that are equally beloved of the GOP’s business wing. But Huck has so far run a desultory and poorly financed campaign mostly focused on hustling copies of his latest book, and tending to his conservative evangelical base by waxing hysterical on alleged threats to Christianity.
Into Huck’s lost opportunity has moved another candidate who opposes trade agreements and entitlement reform, along with the business wing’s solicitude for sanity on immigration policy, packaged in the form of the ultimate celebrity businessman: Donald Trump.
Trump’s shocking surge into the lead in 2016 Republican polls, and his possible return to earth after giving his rivals and the RNC an excuse to bring the hammers of hell down on him by disrespecting John McCain’s war record, has obscured his sources of support. Efforts to typecast his supporters ideologically, or in terms of prefab party factions like the Tea Party, have largely run aground. But it’s difficult to identify a better fit for Sean Trende’s “missing white voters”–downscale and largely non-southern–than Donald Trump. And a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Trump at his peak attracting 33 percent of non-college educated white voters among Republicans and Republican-leaners, as opposed to 9 percent of college educated white GOpers and leaners. (Bernie Sanders, in contrast, runs better among college educated than non-college educated Democrats against Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic field.) Even if Trump quickly falls to earth, he has to be taken semi-seriously as a potential independent candidate in 2016.
And here’s the real shocker in that WaPo/ABC poll: In a hypothetical three-way race with Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, Trump pulls 31 percent of white non-college educated voters, dead even with HRC and just three points behind Jeb.
So who’s the white working class hero? Potentially it’s the Democratic nominee, if she or he takes Stan Greenberg’s advice. But let’s not discount Donald Trump, who’s a reminder that the white working class is now by the numbers predominantly an angry anti-elite constituency that doesn’t love GOP economic positions–but isn’t waiting to be invited back into the Democratic tent, either.

Greg Sargent today poses a seeming mystery today in his Washington Post blog:

The new Washington Post/ABC News poll starkly illustrates the challenge Democrats face. It turns out that an overwhelming majority of non-college whites believes the U.S. economic system is stacked in favor of the rich — but far more of those voters also think Republicans, not Democrats, have better ideas to address that problem.

Greg suggests this represents a paradox but the answer lies in the analysis of “team spirit” vs policy. As the poltical scientist Lilliana Mason noted in a recent WaPo commedntary:

My research suggests a key reason why this happens: our partisan identities motivate us far more powerfully than our views about issues. Although voters may insist in the importance of their values and ideologies, they actually care less about policy and more that their team wins.
This “team spirit” is increasingly powerful because our party identities line up with other powerful identities, such as religion and race. Over the last few decades, Republicans have generally grown increasingly white and churchgoing, while Democrats have become more non-white and secular. This sorting of identities makes us care even more about winning, and less about what our government actually gets done.
…When social and partisan identities align, we begin to detach our votes for candidates from our policy interests. The most important thing is to stick with the team. It doesn’t matter if the team you voted for opposes the very policy you voted to enact.

Unfortunate, but true.

I know Ohio Governor John Kasich is considered a long-shot to win the GOP presidential nomination. But he does bring to the GOP field a more sober persona than any of his competitors at a time when Donald Trump is grabbing daily headlines with his bomb du jour. WaPo’s Dan Balz has some interesting observations about Kasich’s entry, including:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich joined the crowded 2016 GOP presidential race Tuesday, offering an optimistic message that blends fiscal conservatism with social welfare compassion that he hopes will shake up the Republican Party and vault him into contention for the nomination.
…He spoke of family and faith, of those left behind and those who wonder if the American dream is still alive. “If we’re not born to serve others, what were we born to do?” he said…Kasich begins the contest far back in the field. His advisers say they think he can become a credible threat to win the nomination by force of personality and record. His detractors question whether he has the discipline required for a long and grueling presidential race.

As for the dynamics of the GOP race, Balz notes that, “Collectively, the 2016 GOP field is more experienced and politically heftier than those who sought the nomination four years ago.” However, adds Balz,

At this point, two races are underway. One is a contest among some of the most conservative candidates for supremacy in Iowa. The other is a largely separate contest among those candidates considered less conservative who will need a strong finish in New Hampshire to stay alive…It is the New Hampshire contest that is most attractive to Kasich, who will spend several days there this week campaigning.

For now the media loves Trump, who provides them and late night comedians with endless material. But in a nation where TV still defines a candidate’s media persona, Kasich may have a longer-term edge in the GOP pack, provided he survives the next few months. I’ve noticed that WI Governor Scott Walker is pretty clever about projecting a much more moderate television persona than his extremist record indicates. Kasich, on the other hand, has good media skills, with less to hide. As Balz observes,

He ran for president in 2000 but was an early casualty. He spent a decade in business and television before winning the governorship in 2010 in a state that often helps decide presidential elections. He won reelection in a landslide last November…His supporters think he can connect more effectively than his rivals with his upbeat message and a personality that is direct, occasionally prickly and rarely reserved. Advisers hope that will brand him as authentic at a time of skepticism about canned or programmed politicians.
…In Ohio, he cut taxes and eliminated a sizable budget deficit. To the chagrin of conservatives, he engineered an expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. He called for spending more money on such things as treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. He cites his religious faith as motivating him to help those in need. He has said he is open to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

But no one should doubt that Kasich will tow the conservative line on major economic issues if elected. As Balz explains, “In his first term, he signed a bill to restrict collective-bargaining rights for public employee unions, along the lines of legislation that caused a partisan eruption in Wisconsin under Walker. When Ohio voters rejected the plan in a later ballot initiative, Kasich accepted defeat and has not clashed seriously with unions since over such issues, although he and organized labor have been at odds over spending and taxes.”
At The Washington Monthly, TDS managing editor Ed Kilgore notes that those who liken Kasich’s chances to those of GOP moderate Jon Huntsman have a point or two:

In theory, Kasich can fix his problem; the most efficient way would probably be to attack the godless liberal media whose adoration is helping crush him. But with just two weeks left before Fox News decides who makes the August 6 debate cut, and Kasich now definitely out of the top ten, it’s doubtful he can simultaneously elevate himself and change his ideological image that fast, particularly with the current fascination over Donald Trump soaking up so much attention.
And here’s the clincher: Kasich’s chief “strategist” is John Weaver; his ad man is Fred Davis; both were fixtures in the mighty Huntsman campaign.
So if you’re interested in Kasich-mania, watch closely. It probably won’t last.

Kasich does face a steep, uphill struggle in a party where an egomaniacal bomb-thrower leads the pack in current polls, and, as Kilgore notes, he is already in danger of not making the cut for the first televised debates. But the fact that he has done so well in a critical swing state makes him a little more of a threat to Dems than Utah’s Huntsman.
In the unlikely event that Kasich somehow gains enough momentum to survive the next few months and eventually get nominated, his ability to project a moderate image could give the Democratic nominee a fight. Win or lose, Kasich will provide an updated test of the GOP’s tolerance for even the appearance of moderation.

From “Jeb Bush defends McCain, but supported Swift Boat attacks against Kerry” by Jeremy Diamond and Jake Tapper:

After Donald Trump questioned Republican Sen. John McCain’s status as a war hero, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is not a veteran, quickly jumped to McCain’s defense.
“Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans – particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration,” he tweeted on Saturday.
But that outrage was missing ten years ago, when a political group attacked another Vietnam veteran — then-Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee who sought to unseat Bush’s brother, the incumbent president, during the 2004 election.
Instead, Bush praised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that lobbed attacks questioning Kerry’s service record in Vietnam — attacks McCain unequivocally criticized in 2004 as “dishonest and dishonorable.”

Here’s an excerpt from Bush’s self-righteous letter to the swiftboaters, as reported by Tapper and Diamond:

As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry,” Bush wrote in a letter dated January 19, 2005.

The authors note of the swift boater attacks that “All of the charges were contradicted by official military records and almost all of the men who served with Kerry came out in defense of their former crewmate, praising his courage.”
And further, “Only one of the swift boat critics served with Kerry. Kerry received several medals for his service in Vietnam, including several Purple Heart medals for injuries he sustained in combat.”
Bush should answer for his highly politicized patriotism and explain how he feels about the swift boat attacks today. Whether or not he today has the mettle to apologize for disrespecting a highly-decorated veteran will reveal much about his character and integrity.

“Most Americans would support imposing a term limit on the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, who now serve for life, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll has found in the aftermath of major rulings by the court on Obamacare and gay marriage…Support for the 10-year term limit proposed by the poll was bipartisan, with 66 percent saying they favored such a change while 17 percent supported life tenure…The two big rulings in June were widely welcomed by liberals. Nevertheless, 66 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of independents said they favored the 10-year term limit idea, according to the poll.”
Bush leads Rubio on home turf by double digits, according to a new poll by Bendixen & Amandi International — even among Cuban-Americans, reports Patricia Mazzei of the Miami Herald.
At fivethirtyeight.com Harry Enten explains why Gov. Chris “Bridgegate” Christie may not even qualify for the first televised GOP debate.
For some salient insights about progressive blogger takes on the 2016 campaign thus far, check out MSNBC’s “10 things to know from Netroots Nation 2015” by Nisha Chittal and Yasmin Aslam.
Lisa Neff reports at the Wisconsin Gazette that “The “land of the free and the brave” ranks No. 31 among 34 democratic countries in an analysis of voter turnout by the Pew Research Center.”
“…About two-thirds of the states allow in-person early voting, but the early voting periods range anywhere from four to 45 days. About two-thirds of states currently require voters to present identification of some kind at the polls, but they vary greatly in what kind of documents they require and what they do if a person doesn’t provide it…Three states — Colorado, Oregon and Washington — conduct all elections by mail, where a ballot is automatically mailed to every registered voter. At least 19 other states allowed some elections to be conducted by mail…Early voting periods range from four days to 45 days in length, and the average across the 33 states is 19 days, the National Conference of State Legislators said.” notes Meghann Evans of the Winston-Salem Journal.
Major squirmage for GOP expected when Pope Francis visits congress in September. Jennifer Steinhauer has the skinny at NYT.
OR Democratic Governor and self-described “people-person” Kate Brown pioneering a new, warmer style of retail politics, reports Kirk Johnson at The Times.
One Florida Republican state representative, Carlos Curbelo says Trump is part of a Democratic conspiracy to discredit the GOP. To which Paul Begala has jokingly responded, “I am a person of faith – and the Donald’s entry into this race can only be attributed to the fact that the good Lord is a Democrat with a sense of humor.” But the Republican’s Frankenstein needs a milieu in which to thrive, and Democrats should repeatedly point out that the GOP provides the perfect environment to nurture his brand of bellowing bigotry.